Item 2C: Ratification of IGR Minutes

Home Browse Search

number of contractors interested in work of this nature as well as substantially increasing the cost to City to contract the work. Next provision is the performance of services outside of the U.S. Similar bills have appeared in the past and I have concerns about contractors that may travel while they perform the work (architects or consultants primarily) but my concern here is minimal. If separated out from the rest of this bill and cleaned up to address these possibilities this would probably be acceptable. The next provision is regarding hiring contractors to assist in the development of specifications and then not allowing them to bid on the subsequent project. This is a competition-limiting provision because we do have need for contractors to assist in specification writing when the industry is very specialized with limited contractors able to perform the work. This is a priority 3 oppose as I think it's unnecessary as we often refer to the Oregon Government Ethics Commission Staff & Advisory opinions though I do not think it would have significant negative impact on the City. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Mike Penwell CS-FAC 1/27/2012 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: I concur with Jamie’s comments, particularly that this bill attempts to address too many disparate issues concurrently. Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation Paul Klope PWE 1/30/2012 Pri 3 Oppose Comments: This bill proposes a selection of unrelated (to each other) changes to contracting law. Below are my comments for each separate provision. - Employment rights: this clause prevents an individual from seeking and/or being employed by a contractor for a year after the individual has left employment with a public contracting agency. I don't believe this law is necessary to protect public contracting agencies, and it limits the rights of individuals to choose where they work, so I think we should oppose this portion of the bill. For example, this law would mean that an engineer who was laid off from a public agency, would be prohibited from being gainfully employed in his/her profession at a consulting firm inside the State of Oregon for a year, so that person would have to either chose to leave the state, go on unemployment or try another profession. This portion of the bill should be deleted. - Requires that services for a public contract must be performed in the United States. It's unlikely that this part of the bill will have any impact on the City. - A company providing services to assist the contracting agency to develop specifications, scope of work or other solicitation documents may not submit a bid or proposal to provide the goods and personal services (falling under 297B) requested by the solicitation. The City should be able to work within these restrictions. - Requires a bidder or proposer to provide, in the bid or proposal, prices for goods or services the same or similar to those being requested it also provides or offers to other public agencies. This portion of the bill should have little effect on the City.- Allows an employees or unions to sue to stop a public agency from contracting out work that will 6 | Page February 8, 2012 IGR Committee Meeting